CoCreate’s Free 3D: OneSpace Modeling Personal Edition

The article explains what history-based (parametric) modeling is, but does not explain what CoCreate's "Dynamic Modeling" is. So, the claims that Dynamic Modeling are superior are just that: claims. No substance.Also, the buttons in the page to go to the next page make no sense. One seems to jump to some other random article, rather than a continuation of the existing article.

all_trades_jack(Unregistered)10/09/08 03:03 PM

It's always interesting to watch companies that have been left behind in the dust technologically market their antiquated solution as "revolutionary." Non-parametric modeling used to be the *only* way to work. While I can see the advantage in a hybrid system (like NX from UGS) that allows both parametric modeling and direct manipulation of the geometry, The CoCreate claim that parametrics are completely useless is just plain silly. "Retro" is kinda cool for living room furniture, but certainly less desirable in a mainstream design tool.

Todd Black(Unregistered)10/09/08 03:03 PM

I want to provide clarification regarding the CoCreate platform and what it means to have a Dynamic Modeling based approach.

There are two approaches to 3D product development: history-based and Dynamic Modeling based (or history-free). Each approach is different and each has its own benefits and applications for a company. Which is best for an organization is based upon the company, their product, and their product's lifecycle.Sometimes the differences between the two, and what it means to be Dynamic Modeling based, is best shown rather than described. In support of this, we created an on-demand webcast that presents the benefits of our approach followed by a product demonstration highlighting the product’s applications and strengths.On-demand webcast: http://www.cocreate.com/rd/dd The benefits we enable are supported through a long list of customer successes across the high-tech electronics and machinery industries. These stories span the small to mid-size business up to the corporate enterprise. Some feature companies that at first tried a history-based approach and then switched to CoCreate’s platform because of the characteristics of their product development process.Success stories: http://www.cocreate.com/success_stories.cfm We separate the discussion of history and parametrics. CoCreate also offers parametric capabilities within its product. Parametric relationships are important for some types of product development environments and we recognize that. Rather than having a fully constrained model, CoCreate lets you add them as needed. The primary difference between these two approaches is in the geometry creation and modification process. And that comes from either being history-based or Dynamic Modeling based.I hope that the above resources help clarify and support CoCreate’s position within the CAD and PLM industry.

Jacques(Unregistered)10/09/08 03:03 PM

As a user who moved from Solidworks to CoCreate due to a job change, here's a hands on perspective. It honestly took a day of training for me to 'get' what CoCreate means by history free or dynamic modeling. But now there is no chance I'm going back to history based modeling. On almost every project before using CoCreate, I *hated* changing requirements, especially those we did not plan for (most of them). Inevitably, 'just one more change' and the model would break and I'd start from scratch rather than try to fix it. That always meant working later at night than planned. But with CoCreate OSDM, they've managed to put a ton of intelligence into thier modeler and somehow elimated the history tree (I still don't get how, but it is amazing). OneSpace Designer Modeling is a parametic modeler, it's just a history free one, which is great. It's the best of both worlds. And I can even open up files from all kinds of other tools and edit them as if I deisnged them myself (absolutely amazing). As for Taylor (All Trades Jack) above who is a Product Manager for UGS/NX, better take a closer look at OSDM before ripping on it. Your statements are like saying that Windows is antiquated based on looking back at Windows version 3.1. I watched the video and you should too.

usertogo(Unregistered)10/09/08 03:03 PM

Thanks for the Article Jeff, might be an interesting tool for people that have to work on designs that they did not develop, or if they don't own a Hybrid Modeler like 'all_trades_jack' mentions...But for people that design their own products from scratch, there is no doubt in my mind that they would want a history based modeler. Of course that should be one that keeps all previously chosen parameters accessible to future definition and change. If hybrid dynamic modeling was used to modify an existing design the change will hopefully become a parametric history based 'change-feature' until somebody goes and exports to a simple geometric solids description file format and effectively looses the history information again. But lets be aware that having to describe a geometry will almost certainly take much more storage space than to only have to store the object tree of the historic creation and modification of 'features'. And don't even imagine having to modify applied patterns repeated many times, or changing your mind about an earlier applied feature! So if you want to be able to reuse your designs, create parametric variations and exploratively try out things; don't flush your investment! Keep your History!